Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gitmo Is Killing Me

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 539 posts

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#331

Post by sequoia »

parfe wrote: post #291
sequoia wrote: post #289

Somehow it strikes me as odd that the executive can go around starting wars, one of the most costly (blood & gold) behaviors a gov't can engage in, and one that explicitly requires the approval of congress, without congressional approval, but when it comes to closing a torture dungeon it's 'well gee whiz I'd love to but mean old congress won't let me. Sorry- my hands are tied!' horseshit. There's more than one way to…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milita... Fair disingenuous so say the President started wars without congressional approval.

My statement that wars were started "without congressional approval" may be wrong. That said, I still do not believe that it's outside the president's power to shut down gitmo. As many other commenters here have pointed out, he could simply order marines to free those prisoners with no charges to Cuban soil; this would cost no money at all; congress would not be able to prevent it. Could the president not do this?

Furthermore, he promised to do so repeatedly during his campaign. Was the president, a constitutional scholar, merely mistaken about his powers as the executive?

I apologize for muddying the waters with discussion of other presidential actions.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#332

Post by tibbon »

DannyBee wrote: post #325
at-fates-hands wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>>>>>>I appreciate that there may be anger outs people in Gitmo, but they have every right to a trial I have. It's really not that easy considering most people say these people should be covered under the Geneva Convention and given a military tribunal to determine their guilt. Unfortunately, the convention was really adopted for conventional warfare, not the sort of loosely organized terrorists we're currently fig…

1. I would "return to the battlefield" too after being treated like they are, even if i had done nothing before. What makes you think Gitmo is not the cause? 2. If the convention is outdated, update it. It's not like the US is pushing the Hague and others to convene treaty proceedings to get this done. Until the US actually takes any steps to try to fix this "problem", i take it as just a BS excuse. 3. You have a ver…

Agreed, especially on #2. Let's have a new international war treaty that assigns basic human rights to all people

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#333

Post by pinwale »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #320
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #17

Gitmo was the first thing that clued me that I had made a mistake voting for Obama's promises (not that McCain would have ever gotten it instead!). It was such a complete reversal that I immediately knew his promises were completely worthless. I appreciate that there may be anger outs people in Gitmo, but they have every right to a trial I have. The double standard of what human rights mean if you are a US citizen an…

>>>>>>>>I appreciate that there may be anger outs people in Gitmo, but they have every right to a trial I have. It's really not that easy considering most people say these people should be covered under the Geneva Convention and given a military tribunal to determine their guilt. Unfortunately, the convention was really adopted for conventional warfare, not the sort of loosely organized terrorists we're currently fig…

A 25% recidivism rate is pretty good considering that many might have gone to the "battlefield" as payback for their improper imprisonment. Also, it is disingenuous to conflate terrorism with insurgency as both have different motivations and "scope of battlefield."

So-called insurgents were only a threat to local presence of Americans and not interested in sticking overseas or be a part of a broader movement against America. Just because they are fighting for their country from their perspective doesn't make it right to say they are the same as terrorists.

You also have to take into account for the loss of goodwill and reputation across the world for hosting Gitmo; particularly when it has possibly radicalized more people simply by having something to point to when a terrorist recruiter propagandizes about the 'evilness of the US' and the merits of attacking us.

Just to compare, a quick google search shows that the U.S. recidivism was around 70%. It might have improved or not since the study period, but it does perspective on the issue.

Source: http://bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#334

Post by pstuart »

tibbon wrote: post #330

I make no apologies for Obama- he should have closed Gitmo. Yet, there's one tiny tiny possibility that I have considered for why he hasn't. Before becoming president, you make promises, have goals, and overall think you know what you're going to do on day one. However, after inauguration you go for your first big debriefing with the CIA, FBI, etc... The things you learn there completely change the course what you wa…

It's not like he's getting full cooperation from congress on this.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#335

Post by gitmothrow »

smokinjoe wrote: post #306
gitmothrow wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's funny that you vote for Obama because you think he's a good guy with a good vision for America, then when he gets into power and makes a decision you think is morally contemptuous, your first though is that 'he wasn't who I thought he was'. What the fuck do you know about national security, SoftwareMaven? You're a programmer on Hacker News. You're not privy to the shit that Obama is privy to. How do you…

> Also, throwaway so I don't get called a fascist nazi or whatever. Don't worry, I just consider you a coward for that. If you seriously want to call someone out, do it from your account and stand by your words.

If only I could be as brave as you.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#336

Post by Zak »

rayiner wrote: post #313
spot wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is false, FYI. Please reread the constitution. Sometimes it refers to citizens, sometimes it refers to people. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone. The fundamental civil liberties protections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to all “persons,” not just citizens. For example, every person in the United States has the right to due process and equal protection; to criminal proceedings that afford a ri…

The Bill of Rights only applies to "people" within the jurisdiction of the American government. The Constitution is not a document that has extraterritorial force of international extent.

I'm pretty sure that jurisdiction includes people in prisons operatedby the US government.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#337

Post by gitmothrow »

rooshdi wrote: post #297
gitmothrow wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unjust to spend limited FBI resources focusing on high risk groups? Do you think they should be monitoring bridge games at nursing homes? Do you think that Arab and Muslim Americans have never been involved in domestic terrorist operations?

You're making very strong allegations towards a group of humans solely based on their ethnicity or religion.

Nope. I have made no 'allegations'.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#338

Post by dhimes »

DannyBee wrote: post #327
dhimes wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting- I hadn't thought of that. It then begs the question: why would his opponents not want to close it down?

Because it makes them look weak. If the US president can close Guantanamo over the objections of sabre rattling congressmen who keep doing local town halls where they tell their constituents "we lock the bad guys up forever", then it makes clear to those local folks that their congressman are actually pretty impotent. There are plenty of "he wanted to close Guantanamo bay and let terrorists go, like Obama" commercial…

sabre rattling congressmen who keep doing local town halls where they tell their constituents "we lock the bad guys up forever"

That seems to imply that these same congressmen wouldn't be able to spin a 'US justice leads the world' story out of bringing terrorists to a fair trial? Maybe, but I'm still a little skeptical. Remember: some of these are the guys who convinced half the country that Iraq was behind 911. I think they would have no problem taking credit for solving a problem of injustice at long last, further "demonstrating that there is a real difference between us and the terrorists." And maybe blaming Obama for Gitmo being there in the first place.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#339

Post by gitmothrow »

ucee054 wrote: post #234
berntb wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is an obvious analysis: The idea with terrorism against democracies is to scare the living daylight out of voters in a country. The politicians in those democracies want to win the next election do everything to stop the terror. Afaik, most every democracy that had a serious terrorist problem over years threw out the law book -- UK, Germany, Israel, Spain, USA, etc. It is a reaction built into democracy, if you…

A better way? Easy: what Norway did after Breivik. If a country is aping the Israelis, it's failed as a democracy.

Breivik? You mean the nationalist ethnic Norwegian domestic terrorist?

Yeah that's the same situation as Islamist Saudi and Jordanian nationals flying planes into buildings.

So brave.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#340

Post by digitallogic »

tibbon wrote: post #330

I make no apologies for Obama- he should have closed Gitmo. Yet, there's one tiny tiny possibility that I have considered for why he hasn't. Before becoming president, you make promises, have goals, and overall think you know what you're going to do on day one. However, after inauguration you go for your first big debriefing with the CIA, FBI, etc... The things you learn there completely change the course what you wa…

Presidential candidates have been getting security briefings since Eisenhower: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...

So it's not the case that there was a huge cache of information that he didn't have access too until entering office. It could have been the case that there were some details that weren't made available to him, but that seems unlikely to amount to anything that would lead to a complete reversal of policy.

Post reply on HN